# C_2018455EN.01002701.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/27

---

Action brought on 8 October 2018 — ZF v Commission

(Case T-605/18)

(2018/C 455/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZF (represented by: J.-N Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision of 30 November 2017 fixing the applicant’s pension rights with retroactive effect from 6 March 2015 and Commission Decision of 31 January 2018 to recover an alleged overpayment; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision of 30 November 2017 fixing the applicant’s pension rights with retroactive effect from 6 March 2015 and Commission Decision of 31 January 2018 to recover an alleged overpayment;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the withdrawal of a measure conferring subjective rights, in that the applicant’s rights were fixed when he entered the service of the EEAS on 1 October 2011 in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. The applicant submits therefore that either that decision was lawful and could not be withdrawn, or it was unlawful and so the withdrawal could take effect only within a reasonable period. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the withdrawal of a measure conferring subjective rights, in that the applicant’s rights were fixed when he entered the service of the EEAS on 1 October 2011 in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. The applicant submits therefore that either that decision was lawful and could not be withdrawn, or it was unlawful and so the withdrawal could take effect only within a reasonable period.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in that the decision to recruit the applicant as a temporary agent of grade AD 12, step 8 with seniority in step from 1 November 2007 was a lawful decision and in line with the contract binding the parties, and could not be lawfully withdrawn and replaced by a decision applying a corrective coefficient resulting in a marked reduction in the applicant’s remuneration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in that the decision to recruit the applicant as a temporary agent of grade AD 12, step 8 with seniority in step from 1 November 2007 was a lawful decision and in line with the contract binding the parties, and could not be lawfully withdrawn and replaced by a decision applying a corrective coefficient resulting in a marked reduction in the applicant’s remuneration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission when it decided that the applicant performed duties at the level of head of sector. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission when it decided that the applicant performed duties at the level of head of sector.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons in that the contested decisions are vitiated by a failure to state any relevant reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons in that the contested decisions are vitiated by a failure to state any relevant reasons.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground that the applicant could not be informed of a possible irregularity in the decision fixing his rights when he entered the service of the EEAS. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground that the applicant could not be informed of a possible irregularity in the decision fixing his rights when he entered the service of the EEAS.

---